Vandross v. Stirling
Petitioner: Charles Nemon Vandross
Respondent: Bryan Stirling
Case Number: 1:2017cv02484
Filed: September 15, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Aiken Office
County: Richland
Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
Presiding Judge: Shiva V Hodges
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 26 Report and Recommendation, granting the Respondent's 19 motion for summary judgment, and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 7/20/2018. (bgoo)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Vandross v. Stirling
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Charles Nemon Vandross
Represented By: Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best
Represented By: Ernest Charles Grose, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Bryan Stirling
Represented By: Donald John Zelenka
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?